Why does evolution select against atheists?

This is rich. Change this to read with theists and atheists revesed in the sentence and it would make more sense.

Not when you compare it to this:

But there is no conspiracy here. We aren't organized. There is no plan. In fact we are painfully inept in our organizational skills.

Who would you say is the leader of the atheists ?

Atheism is merely a reaction to an existing and comprehensive social institution. It offers nothing. How can you save anyone when you have nothing to offer? All you do is break up what exists and replace it with...nothing. Like breaking up a ship because you don't like the direction its going in and telling everyone to find their own way.
 
Sam,

Atheism is merely a reaction to an existing and comprehensive social institution.

No, not of the institution, of the belief. I won't speak for all atheists but I don't believe any one religion or belief has the answer. I can't honestly say I believe in something that I don't, so I choose not to believe.

It offers nothing. How can you save anyone when you have nothing to offer? All you do is break up what exists and replace it with...nothing

It does offer something, it offers honesty. It says you don't have to have answers to that which there is no known answer. It doesn't mean you stop looking, it means you don't claim to know.

Where is the ship your in heading ? What if you wanted to change it's course because you didn't like the direction it was going ? Could you ?
 
Sam,



No, not of the institution, of the belief. I won't speak for all atheists but I don't believe any one religion or belief has the answer. I can't honestly say I believe in something that I don't, so I choose not to believe.

Not really, pick up any book by an atheist on atheism or on theists. They don't attack the belief as much as they attack the institution.

It does offer something, it offers honesty. It says you don't have to have answers to that which there is no known answer. It doesn't mean you stop looking, it means you don't claim to know.

Whats honest about rejecting something you know nothing about? Every ideology that atheists have replaced for religion has been a horror story from start to finish.
Where is the ship your in heading ? What if you wanted to change it's course because you didn't like the direction it was going ? Could you ?

Not if it meant everyone would drown. And especially if I was clueless about direction.
 
Sam,

Not really, pick up any book by an atheist on atheism

I don't read books by atheists on atheism. It's not a religion, at least being an atheist is not mean't to be. Maybe some look at it that way. But to me it's just a lack of belief in gods.

Whats honest about rejecting something you know nothing about? Every ideology that atheists have replaced for religion has been a horror story from start to finish.

Your confusing atheism with screwing up from a political, socio-economic standpoint. The two have nothing to do with each other. There are many successful societies in the world which are not theocracies, which by your definition must be the definition of a society run on a religious platform.

How are the theocracies doing ?

What's honest about claiming you have an answer to something you can not have an answer to ?
 
Sam,

I don't read books by atheists on atheism. It's not a religion, at least being an atheist is not mean't to be. Maybe some look at it that way. But to me it's just a lack of belief in gods.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Your confusing atheism with screwing up from a political, socio-economic standpoint. The two have nothing to do with each other. There are many successful societies in the world which are not theocracies, which by your definition must be the definition of a society run on a religious platform.

Since when does theism have anything to do with politics? Oh wait. A theocracy is when theists build a society, when atheists invent a "secular" ideology [which consists mostly of mass murdering anyone who thinks differently from them,] and try to build a society sans God, its nothing to do with each other. Never mind the banning of religion, the pro-athiesm platform, etc. Right?
How are the theocracies doing ?

Pretty well, when "Secular" societies don't use them as cannon fodder.

What's honest about claiming you have an answer to something you can not have an answer to ?
Its a dead end. If your only answer to theism is, I don't know nothing but I'm not going there, its your choice to park your butt for eternity and close your mind to possibilities. But when you evangelise your belief, you're detrimental to society.
 
Sam,

Since when does theism have anything to do with politics? Oh wait. A theocracy is when theists build a society, when atheists invent a "secular" ideology [which consists mostly of mass murdering anyone who thinks differently from them,] and try to build a society sans God, its nothing to do with each other. Never mind the banning of religion, the pro-athiesm platform, etc. Right?

The difference is that one is basing the rules on a specific belief system and one is creating their own. Guess what either way, people can screw up the best laid plans. Banning of religion is like burning books, doomed.

Pretty well, when "Secular" societies don't use them as cannon fodder

Then why do they always want to get out and live in the heathen societies ?
The cannon fire is often from their own you have to admit. ?
I agree we should stay out of their lives but atheism and theism have nothing to do with why we don't.

Its a dead end. If your only answer to theism is, I don't know nothing but I'm not going there, its your choice to park your butt for eternity and close your mind to possibilities. But when you evangelise your belief, you're detrimental to society.

I am not closing my mind to the possibilities at all. In fact, you are. You have apparently closed your mind to the possibility that there is no god.

I don't claim that. I only have seen no reason to believe in a specific version or human created version as to who or what god is and what the plan is for us.

I have a very open mind and have deeply pondered how and why we are here and accepted the fact that I have no real answer.
 
secular = without religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless

446px-Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_15-1929.jpeg
 
Secular doesn't mean without religion in the sense that religion is not allowed.

It simply is something that is not religious. A secular society can certainly tolerate religion and does. It just says that not only is the state not run by religion, but it is not run by any one religion.

They are separate. Not without.
 
Leo,

"yes, there is. a "supernatural" one but you don't want to see that as a possibility do you?"

Can you explain, what supernatural one. I can accept the possibility. But you would need to prove it for me to accept it as fact. I don't think you are going to be able to do that.
 
Secular doesn't mean without religion in the sense that religion is not allowed.

It simply is something that is not religious. A secular society can certainly tolerate religion and does. It just says that not only is the state not run by religion, but it is not run by any one religion.

They are separate. Not without.

I know that. I'm Indian.
 
Leo,

"yes, there is. a "supernatural" one but you don't want to see that as a possibility do you?"

Can you explain, what supernatural one. I can accept the possibility. But you would need to prove it for me to accept it as fact.
why? has anybody bothered to "prove" life arose naturally?
has anybody offered any natural explanation for consciousness?
but yet i'm asked to prove my side.
I don't think you are going to be able to do that.
over the past 50 years the following two facts have had no contenders:
life has always been observed coming from life.
there is no instance where life has been observed coming from non life.
 
I think either there is a God, or we're simply hard wired to believe in one.
This thread is too long to catch up with in one sitting, but you've got it right. Religion is a collection of what Jung calls archetypes. An archetype is an instinctive belief passed down in our DNA like all instincts.

Archetypes are identifiable by their occurrence in all societies in all eras, with a very low incidence of exception due to mutation. Belief in the supernatural is the fundamental archetype that underlies all religion, but many of the individual motifs widespread in mythologies, such as a dead man or other creature springing back to life, are also archetypes.

Many archetypes are clearly survival traits. The belief most animals are born with to run away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face--a predator--helps them live long enough to reproduce and pass that instinct down to another generation. Others need a little digging to clarify. The "rite of passage" of testing boys against their ability to withstand pain and hardship has become little more than a twisted ritual in fraternities, lodges and boot camps, but it once prepared young men to help their families survive in a more brutal world.

But anything that is based on DNA can also be purely accidental, the result of genetic drift or a genetic bottleneck. Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam may have had an odd mutation that caused them to believe in gods, and since only their descendants lived to populate the earth, all of us are now cursed with that instinct.

Fortunately Homo sapiens has a secret weapon for dealing with instincts that have outlived their usefulness: our uniquely massive forebrain. Alone among vertebrates, we have the power to examine our instincts critically, see that they are atavistic, and consciously override that instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior.

We have done this many times. Like most apes, we have a strong instinct to be pack-social, to live in small groups of pack-mates we have trusted and cared for since birth, regarding other groups as hated and feared competitors for scarce resources. We first experimented with overriding that instinct fifteen thousand years ago when we allowed dogs--"people" we can't even talk to--to join our pack, forming the first multi-species community and using our complementary hunting skills to create the first food surplus the world had ever seen. We followed that with the invention of agriculture, which we could only do by learning to live in harmony and cooperation with people outside our family, in farming villages. Eventually we built cities, overriding our pack-social instincteven further and learning to trust and care for anonymous strangers. Today we have very nearly made a complete transition to a herd-social species, caring about people on the other side of the planet who are nothing but abstractions to us. (My people just overthrew our government by peaceful democratic means because it was killing those people--and we don't even really like them very much but dammit they are our herd-mates.)

I know some of you have probably seen me write this before, but I'm saying it here because it is proof of our colossal ability to override our instincts and do what's right, even if the caveman inside us is grumbling about it.

Perhaps some day we'll be strong enough to override the archetypal instinct of religion. It has outlasted its usefulness by several thousand years and is now a liability that continually threatens to destroy civilization.

If you feel the need to have faith in something, instead of wasting it on mythology, put your faith in mankind's ability to transcend our base nature. Some day we will win out over religion.
 
Sam,

Well then why would you claim it was in the first place.

It saves time. Most atheists here consider that being secular humanist means being intolerant of religion. I would hate to impose my foreign values on them
 
Leo,

why? has anybody bothered to "prove" life arose naturally?
has anybody offered any natural explanation for consciousness?
but yet i'm asked to prove my side.

I wasn't the one claiming to know. You stated there IS a supernatural one. So yes the burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim that you merely believe than I accept that. No problem.

over the past 50 years the following two facts have had no contenders:
life has always been observed coming from life.
there is no instance where life has been observed coming from non life.

They actually have.

http://www.impactlab.com/2009/02/28/synthetic-life-form-grown-in-lab-capable-of-darwinian-evolution/
 
Leo,



I wasn't the one claiming to know. You stated there IS a supernatural one.
i believe i mentioned it as a possibility.
So yes the burden of proof is on you.
no problem.
life itself, consciousness, intuition, creative genius, the placebo effect, etc, etc.
If you want to claim that you merely believe than I accept that. No problem.
what, to believe in something without a shred of evidence?
what should i call myself, an evolutionist or a theist?



nothing in the above article states science has created life from the elements under natural conditions.
 
Leo,

i believe i mentioned it as a possibility.

Well you said there is and that is why I challenged that. I am not petty, if you mean't a possibility no problem.

I see from your answers that your not a believer in any of the versions laid forth thus far of how we came to be but in the possiblity of a god or supernatural power.

Fair enough.

Although there is still no evidence for that and these "life itself, consciousness, intuition, creative genius, the placebo effect, etc, etc." don't do anything to provide proof other than the obvious fact that we are here. Still brings us back to how and why and when.

nothing in the above article states science has created life from the elements under natural conditions.

What were the natural conditions when life first came to be ?

It sounds like the target keeps getting moved.

If we do create life from nothing that was living are we then called GODS.

If so then we already are.

I don't think so.
 
Back
Top